Tutoring Deaf Students in Higher Education: A Comparison of Baccalaureate and Subbaccalaureate

Transcription

1 Tutoring Deaf Students in Higher Education: A Comparison of Baccalaureate and Subbaccalaureate Student Perceptions Harry G. Lang Eileen Biser Keith Mousley Richard Orlando Jeff Porter National Technical Institute for the Deaf, Rochester Institute of Technology Seventy-three deaf college students completed a survey examining perceptions about tutoring outcomes and emphases, characteristics of tutors, and responsibilities associated with learning through tutoring. The comparisons revealed that while baccalaureate and sub-baccalaureate students have many similar perceptions about tutoring, there are also some striking differences. In particular, as compared to the subbaccalaureate students, baccalaureate students have a stronger preference for focusing on course content and for working with tutors who actively involve them during the tutoring sessions. In addition, baccalaureate students prefer to decide the focus of the tutoring themselves while sub-baccalaureate students tend to leave the decision to the tutor. The results of the analyses with three scales measuring perceptions of tutoring dimensions are summarized and recommendations for the selection and preparation of tutors, as well as for future research, are provided. In the United States, tutoring is an instructional support service that complements the primary teaching/ learning relationship between the classroom teacher and student. The fundamental role of the tutor is to support a student s learning of skills and knowledge. Such skills and knowledge can relate to the content of formal curricula, to the student s mastery and application of learning strategies that enable progressively more independent and productive learning, or to both of these simultaneously. Tutoring deaf students in academic subjects has become a common support service designed to enhance All correspondence should be sent to Harry G. Lang, Department of Research, National Technical Institute for the Deaf, Rochester Institute of Technology, 96 Lomb Memorial Drive, Rochester, NY ( HGL9008@rit.edu). learning for deaf and hard-of-hearing students enrolled in postsecondary programs. Among the 2,350 two- and four-year colleges serving deaf and hard-of-hearing students sampled in an earlier survey reported in 1993 (not including Gallaudet University and the National Technical Institute for the Deaf ) for the period between through , nearly two thirds cited the use of tutoring as a special service in support of coursework (National Center for Educational Statistics, 1993). Tutoring is offered in a variety of ways, primarily through one-to-one assistance by classroom teachers, professional tutors, and/or peers. Tutoring often occurs in faculty offices, resource rooms, or learning centers. The National Center for Educational Statistics (1999) reported 23,860 deaf and hard-of-hearing students in postsecondary programs. More than 12,000 were enrolled in two-year programs offering certificates, diplomas, and associate degrees (i.e., subbaccalaureate programs). Almost 11,000 were enrolled in four-year baccalaureate degree programs. Large institutions were found more likely than small institutions to provide tutoring, and public two-year and four-year institutions were more likely than private two-year and four-year institutions to offer such services. Neither the 1993 nor 1999 studies included an analysis of the quality of tutoring provided to deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Even with the expansion of support and access services provided to deaf and hard-of-hearing students in higher education programs over the past decade, the Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education vol. 9 no. 2 Ó Oxford University Press 2004; all rights reserved. DOI: /deafed/enh020

2 190 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 9:2 Spring 2004 academic failure rate remains, on average, dismal; in the United States, for example, only one of every four such students graduate (Walter, Foster, & Elliot, 1987; Stinson & Walter, 1997). This graduation rate of approximately 25% is about the same for both two-year and four-year programs in the United States. This graduation rate for four-year programs is about half of the rate for hearing students. In 1998, approximately 53% of hearing students were earning bachelor s degrees within five years, and there was a 40% graduation rate at two-year institutions. Both of these rates were reported as record lows in comparison with data since 1983 (ACT, 1998). With regard to deaf students, Lang (2002) reports that while many barriers to success in higher education programs have been identified in research studies over the past two decades, potential solutions have been rarely evaluated. While practically no research on tutoring has been conducted with deaf students at any grade level, there nevertheless appears to be a general consensus that tutoring is an effective adjunct to classroom instruction for hearing students. Tutoring has been investigated systematically for decades as a process for enhancing the academic achievement of hearing students at all educational levels (Rosenshine & Furst, 1969; Ellson, 1975; Cohen, Kulik, & Kulik, 1982; Derry & Potts, 1998). Cohen, Kulik, and Kulik (1982), for example, examined 65 comparative studies with hearing students and found that in 87% of these investigations, students from classes with tutoring programs outperformed those from control classes. Structured tutoring programs (e.g., when the students prior knowledge is known and when the focus of a tutoring session is clear to tutors and students alike) produced stronger positive effects than did nonstructured programs, and this finding agreed with earlier reviews of tutoring by Rosenshine and Furst (1969) and Ellson (1975). In addition, tutoring effects were found to be larger for hearing students when the tutoring programs were shorter in duration and when lower-level skills were taught. Tutoring effects were also generally larger when mathematics rather than reading was the focus. In this analysis of the 65 studies, Cohen, Kulik, and Kulik (1982) write that although the literature contains anecdotal reports of dramatic changes in self-concept brought about by tutoring programs... quantitative studies do not support these reports. Dramatic changes in self-esteem appear to be atypical (p. 246). Whether such results would be similar for deaf learners is at present unknown. The substantial base of knowledge on these and other issues associated with tutoring hearing students may be useful to teachers and educational researchers interested in seeking answers to questions about tutoring deaf students. The present study will examine some of these issues to shed further light on how deaf students perceive tutors and tutoring as a support service in their college education. Review of the Literature on Tutoring Deaf Students While there are tens of thousands of deaf and hard-ofhearing students in baccalaureate and sub-baccalaureate programs, we know little about the dimensions of tutoring as they relate to these students with special needs. We do know that deaf students usually do not get as much information as their hearing peers from classroom lectures (Jacobs, 1977). This problem was described further by Orlando, Gramly, and Hoke (1997), who summarized deaf college students reasons for requesting tutoring. Several reasons are shared in common with hearing peers (e.g., poor study skills, failing grades, and class absences). Other reasons are related to deafness (e.g., difficulty in understanding lectures with or without in-class support services, limited reading and writing skills, and needed clarification of class notes). In one study, Stinson, Saur, and Panara (1982) reported that deaf college students use of tutors appeared selective, generally occurring when students expected a low grade. In summarizing this same study further, Saur and Stinson (1986) wrote that d baccalaureate-level deaf students seem to have an understanding of their own needs and limitations....[and] have a sense of personal control (p. 19). Stinson (1987) wrote that deaf baccalaureate students held highly favorable attitudes toward the tutoring they had received. Deaf students who had taken advantage of this support service appeared to see tutoring as a contribution to their academic success in college courses. Stinson also found that a student s use of a tutor did not reduce the perceived need to study

3 Perceptions of Tutoring 191 and that the need to study was actually perceived as being greater in the class in which a tutor was used. The deaf students rated highly a number of items pertaining to seeking tutors to better understand course material. Scherer and Binder (1989) conducted a study with deaf college students in which they found that professional tutors were preferred and regarded as more capable than peer tutors. Consequently, the frequency of use of peer tutors by these deaf students was much lower, reflecting the perceptions expressed during the interviews. Scherer and Binder (1989) reported that the students felt a good tutor also needed to be able to communicate well, to have empathy, and to have good teaching skills in addition to having expertise with the subject matter (p. 7). Given the general paucity of research regarding the tutoring of deaf students, Orlando et al. (1997) cited research on effective classroom teaching, which highlights the same characteristics of an effective tutor described above by Scherer and Binder (1989). Like hearing students, deaf college students ranked knowledge of course content as the most important characteristic of classroom teachers (Lang, McKee, & Conner, 1993). Deaf college students who use sign language, not surprisingly, have also expressed a special preference for teachers who use sign language clearly and who understand deafness, deaf people, and deaf culture (Lang et al., 1993; Lang, Dowaliby, & Anderson, 1994). Deaf students also perceive a need for teachers who have the ability to communicate in a variety of modes (e.g., American Sign Language, signed English, spoken communication, writing) and who understand the effects of deafness on learning in general (Lang et al., 1993; Marschark, Lang, & Albertini, 2002). With regard to Scherer and Binder s (1989) discussion of empathy in tutors and good teaching skills, these characteristics also emerge in studies of perceptions of effective teaching, with special preference for teachers who provide clear explanations at a good pace, use visual materials, and who establish rapport through friendly and caring attitudes (Lang et al., 1993; Lang et al., 1994). In one study of learning styles of deaf college students in sub-baccalaureate programs, a profile of six styles (Grasha-Riechmann Student Learning Styles Scales) was administered. Lang, Stinson, Liu, Kavanagh, and Basile (1998) found a moderate but significant correlation between the participative learning style and academic achievement as measured by course grades. As with similar studies with hearing students, it appears that the more involved a deaf student is in the learning process, the better that student s chance for learning the course material. Lang et al. (1998) also reported that the sub-baccalaureate students were found to be highly dependent learners, indicating that they learn best when material is presented in an organized and structured manner. Grasha (1996) defined dependent learners as those who look to authority figures for guidelines as to what to do. One disadvantage is that these dependent students find it difficult to develop skills for exhibiting... selfdirection as a learner (p. 169). This finding suggests that, in the context of tutoring, it would be helpful to have more information about deaf students perceived need to learn how to develop self-direction and independent learning skills, about their internal motivation to seek tutoring, and about their perceptions about who should decide the focus of a tutoring session. Research on locus of control has also indicated that deaf students studying for baccalaureate degrees demonstrate greater internality as compared to those in subbaccalaureate degree programs (see Saur and Stinson, 1986, for a discussion). The students with greater internality see the relationship between outcomes and their ability and effort more than do students with greater externality. The latter attribute their success to luck, fate, or powerful others (Wilhite, 1990). Other factors pertaining to tutoring identified in the literature include the element of scheduling time for tutoring and the relationship between the tutor and classroom teacher. Scherer and Binder (1989), for example, found the use of tutors by deaf college students to be influenced by the availability of time. Students felt so much pressure to satisfy their course load that they tended to lose motivation to sign up for tutoring, especially when the availability of tutors was problematic, requiring students to match schedules and to compete with other students in group tutoring sessions or for scheduling assistance. With regard to the relationship tutors need to have with the deaf students classroom teachers, Saur (1992) examined tutoring as a re-teaching of material taught

4 192 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 9:2 Spring 2004 by another person in a particular course. She wrote that tutoring deaf college students should be viewed as an integral component of instruction: Professional/ faculty tutors must keep in contact with the instructor to be sure that their tutoring is in keeping with the instructor s goals in teaching.... The tutor, in fact, becomes a partner of the instructor with positive results for both hearing and deaf class participants (pp ). Since little is known about how deaf college students view tutoring as a support service, their perceptions may help us understand the factors that may influence learning and motivation, which may in turn lead to improved strategies and more productive outcomes for both teaching and tutoring at the postsecondary level. To address these goals, a questionnaire was developed, items of which were derived from the research findings reported in the literature review. This study examined the similarities and differences in the perceptions about tutoring held by deaf college students in baccalaureate and sub-baccalaureate majors. Specifically, four research questions were addressed: Do deaf college students in baccalaureate and sub-baccalaureate degree programs differ in their perceptions of what should be the outcomes and emphases of tutoring? Do deaf college students in baccalaureate and sub-baccalaureate degree programs differ in their perceptions of tutor characteristics? Do deaf college students in baccalaureate and sub-baccalaureate degree programs differ in their perceptions of responsibilities associated with tutoring? Does prior with tutoring influence perceptions about these tutoring dimensions? Method Participants This investigation involved two groups of deaf college students at Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT), a university with a current enrollment of more than 1,200 deaf students and 14, 500 full- and part-time hearing students. As in other universities in the United States, some deaf students at RIT seek tutoring from d faculty tutors, some attend learning centers or resource rooms staffed by d tutors, and still others contact their professors directly for one-to-one assistance. While postsecondary programs, including RIT in some of its learning environments, offer peer tutoring as well, the present study focuses on deaf students perceptions about professional tutors only. At the time of this study, 42% of the 1,200 deaf students at RIT were in classes with hearing peers in baccalaureate degree programs. All of the students filling out the survey were receiving tutoring and/or had received tutoring the previous year. Baccalaureate students were pursuing degrees in the College of Applied Science and Technology, College of Business, College of Engineering, College of Imaging Arts and Sciences, College of Liberal Arts, or the College of Science. Their tutoring was primarily over an extended period with faculty tutors working in Support Departments. In this setting, tutoring usually happens on a one-on-one basis in faculty tutor offices. Tutors for deaf students in the baccalaureate degree programs were qualified faculty who had in educating deaf students and whose primary area of responsibility was to provide this support service. They include both full-time and part-time faculty. The part-time tutors held other responsibilities such as teaching, research, and counseling. These tutors were assigned to discipline areas associated with the colleges of Liberal Arts, Business, Science/Engineering, and Imaging Arts and Sciences. The remaining 58% of the student enrollment were sub-baccalaureate students in classes with other deaf students in technical programs in National Technical Institute for the Deaf (NTID). These students were predominantly pursuing associate degrees and certificates in technical career programs such as Photography, Optical Finishing Technology, and Business Occupations. They most often sought tutoring in mathematics, humanities and social sciences, reading, writing, and science in a large learning center during scheduled hours. This tutoring area is sectioned off for different content areas. In general, there are one to three tutors per content area (e.g., mathematics, science, reading, writing) at any particular hour. The faculty tutors are teachers, educational researchers, and other professionals who have appropriate discipline

5 Perceptions of Tutoring 193 Table 1 Characteristics of deaf student participants Baccalaureate Sub-baccalaureate F M Total F M Total Number of subjects Hearing status PTA (left ear) 102 db 106 db PTA (right ear) 97 db 103 db High school type Hearing school with 4 3 deaf program Hearing school without deaf program Public residential school 3 13 Private day school 1 1 Unknown 3 2 Test scores n M (SD) n M (SD) California reading test (0.77) (1.32) NTID math test (12.2) (8.0) NTID writing test (21.8) (15.4) backgrounds and knowledge of the college curriculum and who commit a percentage of their overall workload or are hired on an adjunct basis. Students are free to work on their homework in the adjacent study area and then ask for tutor assistance. Some group tutoring occurs, but generally the focus is on one-to-one interactions. Design and Procedures Recruitment of participants. Sixty-six baccalaureate students receiving tutoring were invited by to join in the study. For the sub-baccalaureate students, a sign was posted in the learning center inviting them to participate in the study. Students were paid $10 for their participation. All subjects were promised anonymity. Table 1 summarizes some relevant background characteristics of the 73 students whose perceptions were evaluated in this study. Scores are provided for math, writing, and reading tests. The NTID Mathematics Test includes items related to fundamental mathematics concepts such as facility with fractions, decimals, measurement and percents, algebra, and geometry. Questions are taken from courses offered in the college, and results are used for placement of students who take the test. The NTID Writing Test was developed to measure the writing ability of postsecondary deaf students. Each essay is evaluated by three judges who rate organization, content, language use, and vocabulary. The ratings of each category are added together to form a composite score. Students are placed in appropriate writing courses based on the composite score. As indicated in Table 1, the average reading, writing, and mathematics scores are higher for students in the baccalaureate degree programs than for students in the sub-baccalaureate programs. Although data for reading, writing, and mathematics were not available for all of the subjects in the two groups, the mean scores indicate skill level differences for the sub-baccalaureate and baccalaureate levels. T-tests for the unpaired groups were conducted and the differences were significant for the California reading test, t(1, 48) , p ; the NTID writing test, t(1, 48) , p ; and the NTID math test, t(1, 45) , p Seventeen of the 37 sub-baccalaureate students and 16 of the 36 baccalaureate students had previously d tutoring in high school and/or college. Of these 33 students, 83% valued the prior tutoring they had received. A summary of tutoring participation factors for the 73 students involved in the present

6 194 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 9:2 Spring 2004 Table 2 Participation of subjects in college tutoring Baccalaureate n ¼ 36 Reasons for students seeking tutoring Sub-baccalaureate n ¼ 37 Required by teacher Optional Recommended by teacher Recommended after crisis Frequency of tutoring received Once per week or less Twice per week Three times per week More than three times per week Average length of tutoring session Less than 30 min min min More than 1 h Type of tutoring One to one Small group Total n ¼ 73 study is shown in Table 2. In general, these data do not show any particular pattern of differences between the baccalaureate and sub-baccalaureate groups with regard to reasons for going to tutoring, frequency of tutoring, or the average length of tutoring sessions. Questionnaire design. The questionnaire, developed to examine perceptions about tutoring held by deaf baccalaureate and sub-baccalaureate students, included three scales of tutoring Emphases/Outcomes, Tutor Characteristics, and Responsibilities. Perceptions of what the outcomes and emphases of tutoring should be were measured with items pertaining to course grade, course content knowledge, and general skills (building confidence about learning, learning how to organize for class, developing an appreciation for learning, becoming an independent learner, using different learning strategies). The scale measuring perceptions about the characteristics of tutors included items related to the tutor s educational knowledge (content, understanding the research methods of the discipline being tutored, understanding theories of teaching), and knowledge related to deafness (understanding deafness and Deaf culture, ability to communicate in a variety of ways with deaf students). There were also items related to affective dimensions (showing a caring attitude, motivating the student), flexibility in scheduling students for tutoring), and having rapport with the students classroom teacher. Two items related to scheduling and establishing rules for the tutoring process. With regard to the scale measuring perceptions of responsibilities as they relate to tutoring, items were developed to examine motivation for going to tutoring, being realistic about expectations, who should decide the focus of tutoring sessions, frequency of tutoring, and giving tutors time to prepare. An item measuring perceptions of the importance of the tutor actively involving the student during tutoring was also included. More active involvement by the students requires greater preparation on their part. Prior research indicates that deaf students have rated the importance of their active involvement significantly lower than do their classroom teachers (Lang et al., 1993). A six-point, forced-choice response Likert scale was used. Participants were asked to choose a response on the continuous scale ranging from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (6). An example item

7 Table 3 Tutoring outcomes/emphases scale: Item mean scores and standard deviations Baccalaureate Sub-baccalaureate No prior n ¼ 20 Prior n ¼ 16 Combined n ¼ 36 No prior n ¼ 20 Perceptions of Tutoring 195 Prior n ¼ 17 Combined n ¼ 37 Tutoring should focus on the content (the subject of the course) 5.31 (0.60) 5.20 (0.77) 5.25 (0.69) 5.12 (0.78) 4.30 (1.34) 4.68 (1.18) Tutor should help student learn how to organize for class 3.69 (1.35) 3.65 (1.42) 3.67 (1.37) 4.24 (1.64) 3.80 (1.74) 4.00 (1.68) Tutor should help make student more confident 4.69 (1.30) 5.00 (1.03) 4.86 (1.15) 5.12 (0.93) 5.10 (1.33) 5.11 (1.15) Tutoring should help student become an independent learner 5.06 (0.77) 5.30 (0.98) 5.19 (0.89) 5.00 (0.94) 5.30 (1.22) 5.16 (1.09) Tutoring should help student understand his/her own different learning strategies 5.31 (0.70) 5.15 (1.09) 4.22 (0.93) 5.06 (0.90) 5.10 (0.72) 4.08 (0.80) Tutoring should help student use different learning strategies for different kinds of assignments 5.19 (0.91) 5.05 (1.00) 5.11 (0.95) 4.82 (0.95) 5.00 (1.12) 4.92 (1.04) Tutors should improve student s course grade 4.94 (1.18) 5.60 (0.60) 5.31 (0.95) 5.24 (0.90) 4.75 (1.37) 4.97 (1.19) Tutoring should increase student knowledge of the subject of the course 5.44 (0.73) 5.65 (0.59) 5.56 (0.65) 4.82 (0.81) 4.65 (1.46) 4.73 (1.19) Tutor should help student develop an appreciation for learning 4.63 (1.15) 4.40 (1.57) 4.50 (1.38) 5.06 (0.75) 4.60 (1.31) 4.81 (1.10) follows: My tutor should decide what to cover during my tutoring sessions. A pilot study with six deaf college students indicated the need for only a few minor wording changes to the original instrument. Results Having almost no prior research for comparison, we were limited to an examination of the face validity of the questionnaire, defined by Anastasi (1988) as a measure of whether it looks valid to the examinees. The internal consistency (Cronbach s coefficient alpha) reliability estimate for the Outcomes/Emphases, Tutor Characteristics, and Responsibilities scales on this questionnaire were 0.84, 0.83, and 0.75, respectively. Mean scores and standard deviations for the ratings of each item on the scales by the two groups of students are provided in Tables 3, 4, and 5. The mean scores are provided separately for the groups having prior and no prior with tutoring. Discussion of results from each scale on the questionnaire begins with a description of the characteristics that were found to be rated most highly by each group, baccalaureate and sub-baccalaureate. Differences between the groups on items within each scale are then evaluated using multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA). The initial MANOVAs indicated significant differences in perceptions between baccalaureate and sub-baccalaureate for all three scales. No main effects were found for prior with

8 196 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 9:2 Spring 2004 Table 4 Tutor characteristics scale: Item mean scores and standard deviations Baccalaureate No prior n ¼ 20 Prior n ¼ 16 Combined n ¼ 36 Sub-baccalaureate No prior n ¼ 20 Prior n ¼ 17 Combined n ¼ 37 Tutor and classroom teacher should communicate with each other 4.50 (1.10) 4.20 (1.44) 4.64 (1.38) 4.29 (1.40) 4.00 (0.59) 4.38 (1.36) Tutor should know student s course material well 5.56 (0.73) 5.55 (0.76) 4.56 (0.74) 5.12 (1.11) 4.65 (1.73) 3.95 (1.27) Tutor should understand the research methods of student s subject area 5.50 (0.82) 5.25 (0.2) 5.36 (0.76) 4.65 (1.32) 4.80 (1.28) 4.73 (1.28) Tutor should know theories of how to teach 5.19 (0.91) 5.30 (1.08) 5.25 (0.97) 4.88 (0.93) 5.00 (1.56) 4.95 (1.29) Tutor should be knowledgeable about deafness and Deaf Culture 4.94 (1.24) 4.55 (1.40) 4.72 (1.32) 4.06 (1.64) 5.05 (1.23) 4.60 (1.50) Tutor should be skilled in different ways of communicating with deaf students 5.56 (0.63) 5.40 (1.05) 5.47 (0.88) 4.88 (0.99) 5.15 (1.18) 5.03 (1.09) Tutor should care about student s progress 5.13 (0.96) 4.80 (1.20) 4.94 (1.36) 4.71 (1.26) 5.00 (1.45) 4.87 (1.36) Tutor should know how to motivate student 4.50 (1.55) 4.60 (1.27) 4.56 (1.38) 4.77 (1.20) 4.70 (1.63) 4.73 (1.43) Tutor should have a fair tutoring policy with rules about scheduled appointments, student coming prepared, etc (1.24) 5.00 (1.12) 4.89 (1.17) 4.18 (1.33) 4.60 (1.31) 4.41 (1.32) Tutor should be flexible in matching his/her schedule with student s schedule 4.75 (1.13) 4.35 (1.31) 4.53 (1.23) 4.47 (1.42) 4.70 (1.34) 4.60 (1.36) tutoring. The results of the MANOVAs for each scale are provided in the sections below. Wilks s Lambda statistic was used to determine significance in all of the multivariate comparisons in this study. Outcomes/Emphases of Tutoring For the Outcomes/Emphases scale, the highest mean rating for all of the baccalaureate students in this study (with and without prior tutoring) was found for increased knowledge (M , SD ). For sub-baccalaureate students, the highest mean rating was for becoming an independent learner (M , SD ). Thus the item accorded the greatest value differed for the two groups. To formally assess differences between the groups on the Outcomes/Emphases scale, a 2 (baccalaureate/ sub-baccalaureate programs) 3 2 (prior with tutoring) 3 9 (perceptual statements) MANOVA was performed. A significant main effect was found for degree program, Wilks s Lambda F(9,61) , p Subsequent univariate analyses to examine individual effects revealed a striking difference in perceptions between the two groups of students in terms of the course content as a critical component of tutoring. Specifically, significantly higher means for the baccalaureate students were found for the item Tutoring should increase student knowledge of the subject of the course as an outcome, F(1,69) , p 5.001, and for Tutor should focus on content (the

9 Table 5 Responsibilities scale: Item mean scores and standard deviations Baccalaureate No prior n ¼ 20 Prior n ¼ 16 Combined n ¼ 36 Sub-baccalaureate No prior n ¼ 20 Perceptions of Tutoring 197 Prior n ¼ 17 Combined n ¼ 37 Tutor should actively involve student 5.63 (0.50) 5.75 (0.44) 5.69 (0.47) 5.12 (0.70) 5.05 (1.19) 5.08 (0.98) Tutor should be realistic about how much student can do 4.56 (1.32) 5.00 (1.17) 4.81 (1.23) 4.53 (0.87) 4.25 (1.41) 4.38 (1.19) Student should be prepared before going for tutoring 5.69 (0.48) 5.05 (1.32) 5.33 (1.07) 5.00 (0.87) 4.75 (1.25) 4.87 (1.08) Student should know when to ask for tutoring 4.88 (1.26) 5.65 (0.59) 5.31 (1.01) 5.24 (1.09) 4.60 (1.43) 4.89 (1.31) Student should go regularly for tutoring 4.63 (1.36) 5.15 (1.31) 4.92 (1.34) 4.82 (0.88) 4.40 (1.57) 4.60 (1.30) Student should give the tutor enough time to prepare 5.06 (0.85) 5.30 (0.73) 5.19 (0.79) 4.59 (1.12) 5.10 (1.41) 4.87 (1.29) Student should be realistic about how much a tutor can do 4.81 (1.33) 4.90 (0.91) 4.86 (1.10) 4.71 (0.85) 4.25 (1.62) 4.46 (1.33) Student should decide what to cover during tutoring 5.38 (0.89) 5.05 (1.00) 5.19 (0.95) 4.41 (1.12) 4.35 (1.35) 4.38 (1.23) Tutor should decide what to cover during tutoring 2.19 (1.33) 3.25 (1.74) 2.78 (1.64) 4.18 (1.43) 3.05 (1.54) 3.57 (1.57) Tutor should encourage student to go for tutoring 4.44 (1.09) 3.85 (1.42) 4.11 (1.30) 4.00 (1.41) 4.40 (1.47) 4.22 (1.44) Teacher should encourage student to go for tutoring 3.56 (1.09) 3.85 (1.57) 3.72 (1.52) 4.06 (1.52) 4.80 (1.47) 4.46 (1.52) subject of the course), F(1,69) , p These results provide evidence that when different emphases are considered, learning content knowledge is a particularly compelling reason that baccalaureate students seek tutoring in comparison to sub-baccalaureate students. Tutor Characteristics For the Tutor Characteristics scale, the highest mean rating for all of the baccalaureate students in this study (with and without prior tutoring) was found for communication skills (M , SD ), and this same characteristic had the highest mean rating for the sub-baccalaureate students (M , SD ). This replicates earlier reports of the great importance of shared communication skills between tutors and deaf students. Despite this similarity, group differences were found on the Tutor Characteristics scale, based on a 2 (baccalaureate/sub-baccalaureate programs) 3 2 (prior with tutoring) 310 (perceptual statements) MANOVA, Wilks s Lambda F(10, 60) , p Univariate analyses resulted in a similar finding as noted with the Outcomes/Emphases scale. That is, the baccalaureate students rated significantly higher than sub-baccalaureate students their preference for tutors to be knowledgeable about course content, F(1,69) , p 5.018), and to know the research methods associated with the course, F(1,69) , p Thus, an emphasis on course content knowledge distinguishes the baccalaureate students from their subbaccalaureate peers with regard to tutor characteristics. Responsibilities The item asking about tutors actively involving students in the tutoring sessions received the highest mean ratings for both groups of students in this study. For the baccalaureate students (with and without prior

10 198 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 9:2 Spring 2004 Third, even though both groups rated tutors actively involving the students in the tutoring sessions most favorably, baccalaureate students rated this dimension of tutoring significantly higher than sub-baccalaureate students, F(1,69) , p Prior Experience with Tutoring Figure 1 Who decides the focus of tutoring. tutoring), the mean was M (SD ), and for the sub-baccalaureate students, the mean was M , (SD ). Despite this agreement, group differences were indicated by the 2 (baccalaureate/sub-baccalaureate programs) 3 2 (prior with tutoring) 3 11 (perceptual statements) MANOVA, in which a significant main effect for degree programs was found, Wilks s Lambda F(11, 59) , p Univariate analyses indicated several differences in perception between the two groups of students. First, the baccalaureate students had a significantly lower mean for the item measuring the importance of classroom teachers encouraging them to seek tutoring, F(1,69) , p They were less likely than subbaccalaureate students to believe that external encouragement from teachers to go for tutoring is appropriate. Second, the analysis of who should decide the focus of tutoring revealed differential perceptions between the students at the two degree levels. For the student deciding the focus of the tutoring, the baccalaureate students had a significantly higher mean than their sub-baccalaureate peers, F(1,69) , p For the tutor deciding the focus, the subbaccalaureate students had a significantly higher mean than their peers in the baccalaureate programs, F(1,69) , p 5.015). Figure 1 illustrates the difference in preferences of the two groups of students for taking control of the focus of the tutoring session. There were no significant main effects indicating a difference in perception for the three scales among students who had or did not have prior with tutoring in high school. The only interaction effect in this analysis was found for the Responsibilities scale, Wilks s Lambda F(11, 59) , p Baccalaureate students with prior rated higher than their peers without such the item stating that they should know when to ask for tutoring while sub-baccalaureate students with prior tutoring rated this item lower than their peers with no prior tutoring, F(1, 69) , p Discussion and Recommendations The fact that, on average, only one out of four deaf students at both baccalaureate and sub-baccalaureate degree levels in postsecondary institutions throughout the United States completes a program of study indicates a need to more carefully examine tutoring and other support services that may help address this problem. All the participants in the present study were receiving tutoring, and no effort was made to compare their perceptions with those of their peers who do not seek tutoring assistance. The perceptions of the latter group may be especially important to examine in a future study as they may provide additional insight into understanding retention issues. The two groups of deaf students in the present study, baccalaureate and sub-baccalaureate, appear to have many similar perceptions about tutoring. The most striking of these similarities was their emphasis on tutors being able to communicate easily and fluently with students. This characteristic was found to have the highest mean ratings on the Tutor Characteristics scale by both groups. Communication skills have been similarly rated highly in studies of the characteristics of effective classroom teachers (Lang et al., 1993; Lang

11 Perceptions of Tutoring 199 et al., 1994). Student motivation may be negatively influenced by tutors, as well as by teachers, who struggle to communicate clearly in the students preferred modes. Thus, tutors should be well prepared in skills related to the varied modes deaf students use in communicating. This includes signed, spoken, and printed forms of communication in particular. For teachers who use sign language with deaf students, the relationship between sign proficiency and instructional effectiveness appears to be interdependent. In an earlier study of discourse in deaf classrooms, for example, Kluwin (1983) concluded that teachers who were relatively free of the problem of encoding English were more able to focus on the content being taught and to respond to the students themselves. An intricate relationship between content instruction and ability to communicate effectively may exist, and this connection should be investigated in the context of both tutoring and classroom teaching. Students at both baccalaureate and sub-baccalaureate levels also agreed in valuing tutors who actively involve them in the tutoring sessions. There is a growing body of knowledge derived from educational research showing that active and interactive approaches are beneficial to deaf students. Although baccalaureate students rated this even higher than sub-baccalaureate students, active involvement received the highest mean ratings in the Responsibilities scale from both groups of students. Thus, tutoring strategies focusing on active involvement of the students should be further explored. Notable differences were found between groups for several dimensions of tutoring, likely reflecting differences in students academic readiness for college work and in their self-perceptions as learners. One striking difference in perceptions between the baccalaureate and sub-baccalaureate deaf students pertains to course content. The significantly higher means for the baccalaureate students for a focus on understanding course content as an outcome provides evidence that this is a compelling reason baccalaureate students seek tutoring. Significantly higher mean ratings were also found for the baccalaureate students with regard to two related characteristics of tutors content knowledge and understanding the research methods associated with the course. Similarly strong ratings by deaf college students of content knowledge as a critical characteristics of effective classroom teachers have been reported (Lang et al., 1993). The findings in the present study are similar to those reported in studies with hearing undergraduate students. Schmidt and Moust (1995), for example, analyzed data from 524 tutorial groups involving hearing students in a four-year undergraduate university. Based on their results, they developed a causal model of what makes a tutor effective. They conclude: This theory of the effective tutor merges two different perspectives prevalent in the literature. One perspective emphasizes the personal qualities of the tutor; his or her ability to communicate with students in an informal way, coupled with an empathic attitude that enables them to encourage student learning by creating an atmosphere in which open exchanges of ideas is facilitated. The other stresses the tutor s subjectmatter knowledge as a determinant for learning. The data presented in this article suggests that what is needed, really, is a lot of both. (p. 12) Our results regarding sub-baccalaureate students preferring that tutors make the decision about the content to cover is consistent with findings from Lang et al. (1998), who examined six different learning styles using the Grasha-Riechmann Student Learning Styles Scales with deaf sub-baccalaureate students. The dependent learning style had the highest mean score as compared to the five other learning styles. As mentioned earlier, Grasha (1996) characterized dependent learners as those who find it difficult to develop skills of autonomy and self-direction. These students need more structure and organization in their learning s. The finding that deaf subbaccalaureate students rated the importance of tutors actively involving them in the tutoring sessions lower than did baccalaureate students further suggests that these students may recognize that such involvement would require additional studying on their part to be ready for such an approach to learning or perhaps that they lack confidence in their abilities. However, it should be remembered that the sub-baccalaureate students rated the possibility of becoming an independent learner higher than any other item on

12 200 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 9:2 Spring 2004 the Outcomes/Emphases scale. Thus, these students expressed an interest in remediating their currently more dependent learning style. Another related difference in perception between the baccalaureate and sub-baccalaureate students in the present study relates to locus of control and acceptance of responsibilities associated with tutoring as a support service. The results pointing to a greater sense of selfcontrol for baccalaureate students were congruent with findings reported in the literature. Deaf students in four-year programs have a greater internality (sense of control) than do deaf students in two-year programs (Saur & Stinson,1986). These writers report that an implication of this finding on locus of control is that academic success may be influenced not only by ability and degree of hearing loss, but also motivational factors. The interaction effect found in the univariate analyses of the item Student should know when to ask for tutoring is not easily explained. Perhaps it hints that baccalaureate students d with tutoring may develop greater self-awareness and confidence in their abilities to make decisions about seeking tutoring, while sub-baccalaureate students with some prior tutoring have less confidence than subbaccalaureate students without prior in terms of knowing when to go for assistance. Follow-up research may shed more light on the role with support services may play in both self-efficacy and academic achievement. Perceptions of deaf students about learning through tutoring may very well be developed as a result of past educational s. The values, emphases, and approaches demonstrated in high school programs, in particular, may affect student perceptions about, as well as expectations for, tutoring at the postsecondary level. How deaf students in secondary programs perceive dimensions of tutoring bears further investigation. It is important to note that little research has been conducted with deaf learners on these issues and that the perceptions reported here should be taken as suggestions. Additional research is required to define effective tutoring practices. However, we believe that the current findings permit several recommendations for those involved in the practice of providing tutoring for deaf students. Both sub-baccalaureate and baccalaureate deaf college students value tutors who can communicate effectively with students who have different preferences (ASL, Signed English, etc.). Thus, it is important that prospective tutors have training to communicate fluently in a range of communication methods or that efforts are made to match the communication methods and skills of tutor and student. Related to a more active involvement on the part of the student, deaf sub-baccalaureate students indicated that they hoped to become more independent learners. At the same time, they expressed a preference for more structured tutorials and for tutor selection of content. This suggests that one focus of tutoring for subbaccalaureate students is to increase their confidence and encourage their participation in the sessions while providing sufficient structure to assist their learning. This encouragement help the student develop greater sense of control over his/her own learning. Subject-matter knowledge has been consistently found to be an important characteristic of tutors in research studies with hearing students. Although the present study has shown that deaf baccalaureate students prefer an emphasis on content while sub-baccalaureate students prefer an emphasis on general study skills, tutors at both levels need to be knowledgeable of the content in order to effectively enhance both skills and knowledge related to the topics being learned. Although general principles related to tutoring of deaf students have been summarized above, it should be remembered that there were several important differences between the baccalaureate and sub-baccalaureate students who participated in the current study. The overall findings from the present study suggest that, for some critical aspects of tutoring, the expectations and preferences students bring to tutoring do indeed vary according to whether they are enrolled in baccalaureate or sub-baccalaureate degree programs. Differences between the student and tutor in expectations about the focus or outcomes of tutoring may influence student motivation to seek a tutor s assistance and may also influence tutor and student perceptions regarding the success of tutoring. A discussion of these factors both prior to and during the tutoring sessions may increase all students satisfaction, self-esteem, and, ultimately, academic success.

13 Perceptions of Tutoring 201 References ACT (1998, April 1). New low for college graduation rate, but dropout picture brighter [News release]. Retrieved February 6, 2004, from html Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological testing. New York: Macmillan. Cohen, P. A., Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C-L. C. (1982). Educational outcomes of tutoring: A meta-analysis of findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19, Derry, S. J., & Potts, M. K. (1998). How tutors model students: A study of personal constructs in adaptive tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, 35, Ellson, D. G. (1975). Tutoring. In N. Gage (Ed.), The psychology of teaching methods. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Grasha, A. F. (1996). Teaching with style: A practical guide to enhancing learning by understanding teaching and learning styles. Pittsburgh, PA: Alliance Publishers. Jacobs, L. (1977). The efficiency of interpreting input for processing lecture information by deaf college students. Journal of Rehabilitation of the Deaf, 11, Kluwin, T. N. (1983). Discourse in deaf classrooms: The structure of teaching episodes. Discourse Processes, 6, Lang, H. G. (2002). Higher education for deaf students: Research priorities in the new millennium. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 7, Lang, H. G., Dowaliby, F. J., & Anderson, H. (1994). Critical teaching incidents: Recollections of deaf college students. American Annals of the Deaf, 139, Lang, H. G., McKee, B. G., & Conner, K. N. (1993). Characteristics of effective teachers: A descriptive study of perceptions of faculty and deaf college students. American Annals of the Deaf, 138, Lang, H. G., Stinson, M. S., Basile, M., Kavanagh, F., & Liu, Y. (1998). Learning styles of deaf college students and teaching behaviors of their instructors. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 4, Marschark, M., Lang, H. G., & Albertini, J. A. (2002). Educating deaf students: From research to practice. New York: Oxford University Press. National Center for Educational Statistics. (1993). Postsecondary Education Quick Information System, Survey on Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students in Postsecondary Education, US Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). Integrated postsecondary education data system, Fall Enrollment Data File, Fall Orlando, R., Gramly, M. E., & Hoke, J. (1997). Tutoring deaf and hard of hearing students: A report of the National Task Force on Quality of Services in the Postsecondary Education of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students. Rochester, NY: Northeast Technical Assistance Center, Rochester Institute of Technology. Rosenshine, B., & Furst, N. (1969). The effects of tutoring upon pupil achievement: A research review. Washington, DC: Office of Education. Saur, R. E. (1992). Resources for deaf students in the mainstreamed classroom. In S. B. Foster and G. G. Walter (Eds.), Deaf students in postsecondary education (pp ). New York: Routledge. Saur, R. E., & Stinson, M. S. (1986). Characteristics of successful mainstreamed hearing-impaired students: A review of selected research. Journal of Rehabilitation of the Deaf, 20, Scherer, M. J., & Binder, G. E. (1989). The Department of Science and Engineering Support (DSES): A Phase 2 report on student perceptions. National Technical Institute for the Deaf. Schmidt, H. G., & Moust, J. H. C. (1995, April). What makes a tutor effective? A structured equations modelling approach to learning in problem-based curricula. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Stinson, M. S. (1987). Perceptions of tutoring services by mainstreamed hearing-impaired college students. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 5, Stinson, M. S., Saur, R., & Panara, J. (1982, June). Opinions of deaf college students about tutoring services: An example of evaluation of a support service. In M. Stinson (Chair), Support services that facilitate learning in mainstreamed classes by deaf college students. Symposium conducted at the Alexander Graham Bell Association convention, Toronto, Canada. Stinson, M. S., & Stuckless, E. R. (1998). Recent developments in speech-to-print transcription systems for deaf students. In A. Weisel (Ed.), Issues unresolved: New perspectives on language and deaf education (pp ). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. Stinson, M., & Walter, G. (1997). Improving retention for deaf and hard of hearing students: What the research tells us. Journal of American Deafness and Rehabilitation Association, 30, Walter, G., Foster, S., & Elliot, L. (1987, July). Attrition and accommodation of hearing-impaired college students in the U.S. Paper presented at the Tenth National Conference of the Association on Handicapped Student Service Programs in Postsecondary Education. Washington, DC. Wilhite, S. (1990). Self-efficacy, locus of control, self-assessment of memory ability and study activities as predictors of college course achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, Received February 12, 2002; revisions received June 24, 2003; accepted July 12, 2003.